[at-l] cell phones

[saunterer@jimbullard.org (saunterer@jimbullard.org)]

At 09:37 PM 05/28/2002 -0400, Raphael Bustin wrote:
>At 08:40 PM 5/28/2002 -0400, sAunTerer  wrote:
>
>>My point was that the engineering mentality which looks at a place and 
>>says "if we put a cell tower there, and a generating plant over there and 
>>dam up that river to make a reservoir you could live here" makes it 
>>possible to develop areas that people otherwise wouldn't.  There was not 
>>enough naturally occurring water in the LA area to support the city it 
>>has grown into so the engineers dreamed up ways of making it 
>>possible.  In the process they not only created a city where air 
>>pollution is so bad you can sometimes hear it hitting the windshield like 
>>tiny hailstones (I know because I've been there), they messed the ecology 
>>in the areas they took the water from.  My point was that just because 
>>it's convenient (and profitable?) and we have the ability to do it 
>>doesn't mean it's a good idea or that we should do it.
>
>
>Absolutely.  Because a thing can be done does not mean that
>it should be done.  How does that apply to through-hiking and
>long-distance trails?
>
>Without men and women with machetes, shovels, saws and
>accurate maps, there would be no Appalachian Trail.
>
>Consider the technology that enables you to venture forth into
>the wilderness -- the stove, the pack, the Liptons, the sleeping
>bag, the NB 805s, ThorLos, Capilene, PolarGuard, Thermarest,
>Olympus Stylus, and all the rest of it (and I haven't even gotten to
>the GPS, the cell phone, Weary's radio, or Dave Horton's altimeter
>watch.)
>
>The awful logic that you decry is at the core of human nature,
>and hardly confined to the A.T.
>
>Without fire, or clothing, we humans would be confined to living
>within a few degrees of the equator.  Both of these are "technology"
>of the most basic kind.
>
>Without automobiles our entire society would have to be re-
>structured.  Maybe that would be a good thing -- I certainly
>think so.

There are 2 flaws in your logic.  The first is in lumping things like 
clothing, maps and packs, which are independent, with cell phones, radios 
and GPS devices, which require large scale intrusion on the landscape in 
the form or towers or satellites to make them work.  Humans have worn 
clothing of one sort or another throughout human history.  The difference 
between wool and Polarfleece is a distinction only of era.  The changes in 
maps and packs are another minor distinction.  The change that involves the 
ability to stand on an AT ridge and talk to someone in Chicago vs being 
incommunicado is a much more fundamental change in the wildness character 
of the AT (or any other wild area) than a red nylon pack vs a tan canvas one.

The other flaw in your logic (which is implied, if not stated), is that 
because technology is the way of humans then we should just let it happen 
everywhere.  I'm sitting at a computer.  I work with computers all day.  I 
like computers.  I don't want one in the woods.  We are a thinking 
species.  We create tools to do the things we want, both sophisticated ones 
like computers and simple ones like packs.  As a thinking species we make 
choices.  When I'm in the woods I choose to keep things simple.

I only said I think that there are places where things like cell towers, 
wind generators and water diversion projects shouldn't be.  The AT is one 
of those places.  I happen to think we've messed up enough of the world and 
we should think more about the effect of our technology on those areas we 
already mangled before we pave the rest.

sAunTerer